1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Assembly
  4. 26 June 2002
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Consideration Of Urgent Motions

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 32 of 60 | Next Item »

About this Item
Speakers - Markham Mr Colin; Hartcher Mr Chris
Business - Consideration of Urgent Motion, Division


    CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Page: 3846
    Mount Kembla Mining Disaster Centenary Commemoration

    Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.32 p.m.]: This matter should be debated urgently because it is 100 years since this country's worst mining disaster. I have no doubt that honourable members on both sides of the House believe that the matter should be considered urgently, especially as the House will not be sitting again until after the commemoration of the disaster at the end of July. The committee that has organised this commemoration must be recognised urgently by this Chamber.
    Minimum Gaol Sentences

    Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.34 p.m.]: Everyone acknowledges that the matter to which the honourable member for Wollongong referred is important and of significance to the House. The coalmining industry is a great industry and we are all concerned about coalmining disasters. Nonetheless, I submit to the House that it is more important to debate this afternoon the issue of serious crimes of violence committed in our community. Only yesterday a police officer was tragically shot in the execution of his duties. The Premier stated that police officers and their families should be protected, and introduced legislation—which we are about to debate—to extend the protection offered by the Crimes Act to members of the families of police officers. Thus this debate is extremely timely.

    The penalties imposed by the courts for crimes of serious violence are inadequate and sentencing procedures must be overhauled. The maximum penalty imposed for the malicious wounding of a police officer is 12 years, but only one person convicted of this crime has received a prison sentence—of 12 months—in the past four years. The crime of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a police officer carries a maximum penalty of seven years. However, only 41 per cent of those convicted of this crime received a prison sentence. Three in five people charged and convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a police officer did not even receive a prison sentence. The Coalition believes that is wrong and the Leader of the Opposition proposes to impose a minimum sentence of four years in gaol for anyone convicted of causing actual harm to a police officer in the execution of his or her duty. That is an important issue that the House must debate urgently.

    The most common sentence for murder in New South Wales is only 14 years in prison, and 22 per cent of those convicted of murder received minimum terms of 10 years or less. Fewer than one in 10 received a sentence of life imprisonment, which is the maximum penalty for this crime. The Leader of the Opposition has advocated establishing two sentencing categories for those convicted of murder: first, 25 years to life for the most serious crimes; and, second, 15 years to life for lesser crimes. The House must decide whether to debate this matter this afternoon. Honourable members who are concerned about the imposition of inadequate prison sentences for murder will support us.

    The maximum penalty for aggravated sexual assault is 20 years. However, the most common sentence served is three years in prison. This is why the Leader of the Opposition has advocated that a minimum penalty of 15 years imprisonment be established for the crime of gang-rape. Only two people—or 1 per cent of those convicted—received the maximum penalty of 20 years for this crime. The Premier is so concerned about this issue that he recently introduced legislation that will increase the maximum penalty for this crime to life imprisonment. We believe Labor members should join us in approving minimum sentences of 15 years, as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. The crime of sexual assault, or rape, carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. However, the most common period served in gaol is just 18 months. That is totally inadequate and ridiculous. Fewer than one in five of those convicted of this crime received a minimum sentence of more than 3½ years. No-one received the maximum sentence of 14 years. The Leader of the Opposition supports a 10-year minimum gaol sentence for that serious crime.

    We ask the House to endorse the concept of compulsory minimum sentences for serious crimes of violence. Those honourable members who agree with us will vote with us. Those honourable members who believe people who commit serious crimes of violence should not serve a minimum term of imprisonment will vote with the Australian Labor Party. That is the test for the House this afternoon: Do honourable members believe those convicted of serious crimes of violence should be punished with gaol terms or do they believe sentences in such cases should be left for the court to decide, so that large numbers—I have cited the figures—of offenders can walk free? Three out of five people convicted of committing serious assaults on police officers do not even receive a prison sentence. Under a Coalition government murderers, rapists and those who commit serious crimes of violence will go to gaol for a minimum period. The House has the opportunity to join us this afternoon in condemning serious crimes of violence and to ensure that those who commit them go to gaol.

    Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Wollongong be proceeded with—put.

    The House divided.
    Ayes, 48
    Ms Allan
    Mr Amery
    Ms Andrews
    Mr Aquilina
    Mr Ashton
    Mr Bartlett
    Mr Black
    Mr Brown
    Miss Burton
    Mr Campbell
    Mr Collier
    Mr Crittenden
    Mr Debus
    Mr Face
    Mr Gaudry
    Mr Gibson
    Mr Greene    		Mrs Grusovin
    Ms Harrison
    Mr Hickey
    Mr Hunter
    Mr Iemma
    Mrs Lo Po'
    Mr Lynch
    Mr Markham
    Mr Martin
    Mr McBride
    Ms Meagher
    Ms Megarrity
    Mr Mills
    Mr Moss
    Mr Newell
    Ms Nori
    Mr Orkopoulos    		Mr E. T. Page
    Mrs Perry
    Mr Price
    Dr Refshauge
    Ms Saliba
    Mr Stewart
    Mr Tripodi
    Mr Watkins
    Mr West
    Mr Whelan
    Mr Woods
    Mr Yeadon

    Tellers,
    Mr Anderson
    Mr Thompson

    Noes, 36
    Mr Barr
    Mr Brogden
    Mrs Chikarovski
    Mr Collins
    Mr Cull
    Mr Debnam
    Mr George
    Mr Glachan
    Mr Hartcher
    Mr Hazzard
    Mrs Hopwood
    Mr Humpherson
    Dr Kernohan    		Mr Kerr
    Mr Maguire
    Mr McGrane
    Mr Merton
    Ms Moore
    Mr O'Farrell
    Mr Oakeshott
    Mr D. L. Page
    Mr Piccoli
    Mr Richardson
    Mr Rozzoli
    Ms Seaton
    Mrs Skinner    		Mr Slack-Smith
    Mr Souris
    Mr Stoner
    Mr Tink
    Mr Torbay
    Mr J. H. Turner
    Mr R. W. Turner
    Mr Webb

    Tellers,
    Mr Fraser
    Mr R. H. L. Smith

    Pairs
    Ms BeamerMr Armstrong
    Mr McManusMs Hodgkinson

    Question resolved in the affirmative.


Last modified 05/12/2007 16:39:08   :   Update this page